Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-12-2015

Case Style: Robert Baxter v. Charleston's Restaurant Group, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2014-1135

Judge: Patricia G. Parrish

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Danny Shadid and Sara Potts

Defendant's Attorney: Kaci Trojan and Ryan Deligans

Description: Oklahoma City, OK - Robert Baxter sued Charleston's Restaurant Group, Inc. a/k/a Hal Smith Restaurant Group, and The Garage Edmond, LLC on personal tort theories claiming:

1. The plaintiff is a resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
2. The defendant is a domestic for profit business corporation with its principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
3. All of the events which give rise to the plaintiff’s cause of action occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
4. On September 29, 2012, and prior thereto, the defendant owned md operated a restaurant in Edmond, Oklahoma, known as “The Garage”. The Garage restaurant, which is the subject of this lawsuit, is located at 601 S. Bryant Avenue, Edmond, Oklahoma.
5. On or about September 29, 2012, the plaintiff was a customer and business invitee of the defendant.
6. While traversing through the restaurant, the plaintiff slipped and fell on a clear wet substance, thought to be water,
7. The wet floor was a danger hidden to the plaintiff, and a dangerous condition that the plaintiff did not actually know about and would not be expected to observe in the exercise of ordinary care.
8. The defendant created the danger hidden to the plaintiff and allowed the dangerous condition by and through its negligence.
9. The defendant knew and/or should have known that, as a result of us business and that as a part of its business, beverage and/or cleaning substances, including water, are regularly on and/or about the floor of defendant’s restaurant. The defendant knew and/or should have known that all such beverage and/or cleaning substances must be removed from the floor of the restaurant and that all liquids and/or liquid residue must be cleaned such that all of the defendant’s business invitees will not slip/trip on such substances.
lo. The defendant allowed the hidden danger and dangerous conditior; to exist by not exercising reasonable care and maintenance of the premises.
11. The defendant knew and/or should have known that the hidden danger and dangerous condition existed.
12. The defendant did not exercise reasonable care to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition for the use of its invitees.
13. The defendant did not remove or warn the plaintiff of any hidden danger on the premises.
14. The defendant was negligent in its maintenance of the premises and openly allowed a dangerous condition to exist on the property.
15. The defendant, at all times, had a duty to maintain the said premises in a safe condition.
16. The defendant breached its duty to maintain the premises in a safe tondition and as a result of the defendant’s breach of duty, the plaintiff suffered substantial and severe injuries.
17. As a result of the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff has suffered damages including but not limited to, medical bills, temporary total disability, permanent partial disability, physical pain and suffering, loss of income, loss of earning capacity and emotional distress.

Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: